U.S. States & Regions

States and regions across the country are adopting climate policies, including the development of regional greenhouse gas reduction markets, the creation of state and local climate action and adaptation plans, and increasing renewable energy generation. Read More

On May 16, 2013, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey revealed a plan to spend $300 million of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds to buy out homes in flood-prone areas affected by Hurricane Sandy in October 2012. This program will give homeowners in Central New Jersey the opportunity to move instead of rebuilding in an area that is at high risk to flood again. The plan is based on the idea that the costs of relocating homes away from flood-prone areas will be lower than the cost of continuously rebuild flood- or storm-damaged homes

Called the “Willing Seller” Plan, this program is completely voluntary. In addition, it will target neighborhoods rather than individual homes, so that the bought out land can be razed and become open space. The program is targeting nearly 1000 homes in the central coast area of Jersey and will start with around 350 homes in Sayreville, which is located in the floodplains of the Raritan River.

The timeline for this program is short. Property appraisals will begin in June, and the first round of buyouts are expected to be completed by Labor Day. The entire program is scheduled to take just one year. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will handle the purchasing and the State Office of Emergency Management (OEM) will procure funds through FEMA.

This plan is an extension of the state’s Blue Acres Floodplain Acquisitions program, a voluntary buyout program for flood-prone homes that began in 1995, but has been low on funds since 1998 because of a high demand for buyouts. In contrast, demand for New York’s post-Sandy buyout program has been lackluster as most homeowners are choosing to stay and rebuild.

On May 15, 2013, two new pieces of legislation to lower financial barriers to using plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) were passed into law in Colorado by Governor John Hickenlooper. Financial incentives play an important role in keeping PEVs competitive in the automobile market.

House Bill 1247, called the Innovative Motor Vehicle Income Tax Credit, secures state tax credits up to $6000 for electric vehicle purchasers or lessees until 2021, which would have otherwise expired in 2015. The bill specifically covers any EV that can be recharged from external sources, including plug-in hybrids. The bill also covers vehicles that are converted into PEVs, which are eligible for a tax incentive of $7500. This law will take effect in January 2014.

House Bill 1110, called the Special Fuel Tax & Electric Vehicle Fee, establishes a flat, annual fee of $50 for the registration of each plug-in electric vehicle. Sixty percent of the fee replaces the revenue not collected from gasoline taxes and goes toward road and highway maintenance, while the other forty percent funds electric vehicle infrastructure such as charging stations. Colorado’s PEV fee as established by HB 1100 is low compared to those considered by other states, which are around $100 or calculated based on mileage and do not fund PEV infrastructure. This law will take effect in January 2014.

According to Denver Clean Cities, as of July 2012, there were almost 1,300 registered PEVs and around 70 charging public charging stations in the state. However, this number is likely to grow because Colorado is relatively generous with policies supporting electric vehicles.

According to one source, Colorado is the leading state in the region when it comes to PEV policy. A state government report card from Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP) awarded Colorado with a grade of “A-” for its twelve policies that support electric vehicle adoption, including the two laws mentioned above. Colorado does not fare quite as well as California, however, which would earn an “A+” under SWEEP’s methodology because of its major commitment to install fast-charging stations along highway corridors and for 15% of cars sold in the state by 2025 to be plug-in electric vehicles.

These states have set standards specifying that electric utilities deliver a certain amount of electricity from renewable or alternative energy sources. Most of these requirements take the form of a "renewable portfolio standard" (RPS) or "alternative energy portfolio standard" (AEPS) which requires a certain percentage of a utility’s power plant capacity or generation to come from renewable or alternative energy sources by a given date. The standards range from modest to ambitious, and qualifying energy sources vary. Some states also include "carve-outs" (requirements that a certain percentage of the portfolio be generated from a specific energy source, such as solar power) or other incentives to encourage the development of particular resources. Although climate change may not be the prime motivation behind these standards, the use of renewable or alternative energy can deliver significant greenhouse gas reductions. Increasing a state’s use of renewable energy brings other benefits as well, including job creation, energy security, and cleaner air. While the first RPS was established in 1983, the majority of states passed or strengthened their standards after 2000. Consequently, while many of these efforts have increased the penetration of renewables; others have not been in effect long enough to do so. Many states allow utilities to comply with the RPS or AEPS through tradeable credits. While the success of state efforts to increase renewable or alternative energy production will depend in part on federal policies such as production tax credits, states have been effective in encouraging clean energy generation.

Hurricane Sandy inflicted tremendous damage on New York’s coastal communities. The threat of more intense, more frequent storms driven by climate change has led Gov. Andrew Cuomo to propose limiting development in vulnerable locations. Just as Sandy provided a preview of future climate risks, the governor’s proposal may offer an example of one effective response.

The nine states in the northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative took an important step this month that will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase funding for energy efficiency and clean energy without unduly burdening businesses or consumers. That step was to adjust their cap-and-trade program by tightening the emissions cap and increasing compliance flexibility for businesses.

If adopted by the states, the updated Model Rule would tighten the program’s 2014 CO2 budget, or “cap,” by 45 percent -- from 165 million to 91 million short tons (to match actual emissions from 2012). Actual emissions in RGGI states have fallen well below RGGI’s original cap due to a variety of factors including the low cost of natural gas. The new cap would decline by 2.5 percent each year from 2015 to 2020, aiming to surpass the states’ current goal of reducing CO2 emissions from the power sector 10 percent between 2009 and 2018.

Besides making adjustments to the cap, the updated Model Rule includes provisions to expand its offset program, most notably by adding a forestry protocol. This protocol was modeled after the forestry offset protocol under California’s cap-and-trade program, which emphasizes conservation and reforestation.

Other additions in the updated Model Rule include the creation of a cost containment reserve (CCR) of allowances, denominated by one short ton of CO2 per year. The creation of a CCR would provide a fixed additional supply of allowances, but would only be “triggered” and made available if allowance prices exceed predefined price levels. The CCR provisions would also simplify existing compliance flexibility measures.

Analysis of the updated Model Rule indicates that the proposed changes would result in allowance prices of approximately $4 in 2014 and $10 per allowance by 2020, compared to less than $2 in 2012. The updated program would cause average electricity bills for residents in these states to increase by less than 1 percent, but would generate $2.2 billion for investments in energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by about 15 percent from current levels.

The next step is for the updated Model Rule to be formally adopted by RGGI member states through legislative or regulatory processes.

Statement of Judi GreenwaldVice President, Technology and InnovationCenter for Climate and Energy Solutions

February 7, 2013

“We applaud today’s plan by the nine states in the northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to adjust their cap-and-trade program by tightening the cap and increasing compliance flexibility for businesses. Combined, the adjustments would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase available funding for clean energy without unduly burdening businesses or consumers. C2ES believes that market-based policies are the most effective and efficient means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and we appreciate the continued leadership of the RGGI states.”

To adapt to the problems caused by global climate change, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley recently issued an executive order requiring state agencies to consider the risk of coastal flooding and sea level rise when proposing projects for new state-owned structures. The directive will come into effect after July 1, 2013, when state agencies release requirements for such facilities.

Marylanders have already lost 13 islands in the Chesapeake Bay and continue to lose 580 acres of shore per year. The state’s coastline is the fourth longest in the continental United States and is considered a “hotspot” for sea-level rise because levels are rising at an annual rate three to four times faster than in other parts of the world. According to the USGS, the shoreline has experienced an increase of 2-3.7 millimeters per year compared to a global average of less than 1 millimeter. Testimony from the Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources also shows that, in the last century, the level of the Chesapeake Bay has risen more than a foot due to the combined forces of regional land subsidence – receding land movement – and global sea level rise.

At greatest risk are an estimated 40,000 homes and 257,000 acres of land located in areas just above the high tide line. The state is also at greater risk from a 100 year flood, which scientists now predict to have a 22 percent chance of occurrence by 2030.

The executive order follows the state’s 2008 Climate Action Plan, which includes a section on "Reducing Maryland´s Vulnerability to Climate Change" and focuses on the erosion impacts from coastal storm surges. As part of the plan, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources created a CoastSmart Communities Program that provides local training, grants, and technical assistance to areas that are likely to be affected by sea level rise. The program provides users with access to an online mapping tool and has awarded more than $500,000 to coastal areas in order to adapt to climate change impacts.

Besides those in Maryland, many other U.S. state officials are taking measures to address their vulnerability to climate change. State plans range from evaluating the impacts of potential sea level rise, as does Executive Order 09-05 in Washington, to addressing concerns relating to prolonged drought and severe forest fires in Arizona’s Executive Order 2005-02.

Despite some modest steps forward, the UN Climate Change Conference in Doha was a reminder of the slow-paced nature of international negotiations. Annual conferences like these aim to achieve international agreement on reducing the man-made emissions causing climate change, but 20 years after the launch of the U.N. climate process, global emissions continue to rise.

Progress is being made at the domestic level, however, and in many cases, the policy of choice is emissions trading. One of the major challenges going forward is linking these emerging trading systems to achieve the efficiencies of an integrated global greenhouse gas market. The European Union and Australia have announced plans to link their trading systems, and California and Quebec are working toward linking theirs.

The Oregon Environmental Quality Commission recently approved Phase I of the Oregon Clean Fuels Program. This program will implement a low carbon fuel standard, one of a handful of actions set out in HB 2186 (2009) that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) may adopt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is the first of two required approval rounds for the program, eventually aiming to lower fuel greenhouse gas emission intensity to ten percent below 2010 levels.

Phase I will require fuel importers and suppliers in the State of Oregon to monitor and report fuel volumes and carbon intensity (the amount of carbon emissions per unit of energy). Importantly, the program will use lifecycle analysis to incorporate total emissions from fuel uses, including the production and refining processes as well as direct fuel combustion.

If approved after further study and development, Phase II would require fuel suppliers to gradually lower fuel greenhouse gas emission intensity until it is ten percent below 2010 levels, with achievement anticipated by 2025. Covered entities could lower emissions in the production, storage, transportation, and combustion of fuels, as well as by providing an increased percentage of biofuels, such as biodiesel or ethanol, or other alternative fuels, such as electricity. Additionally, companies could participate in a credit market to buy or sell credits to fulfill their requirements. Approval of Phase II would extend the program past its current expiration, or ‘sunset date,’ at the end of 2015.

Proponents of the program argue that it is a flexible and effective approach to addressing greenhouse gas emissions. A support coalition has formed, called Clean Fuels Now; its members emphasize the economic benefit from new business opportunities related to clean technology and alternative fuels. Contrarily, opponents expressed concern that the new Clean Fuels Program will be expensive due to monitoring and reporting costs, as well as increased fuel prices. However, there are protective safeguards in place to avoid consumer fuel price increases. Another concern is that the program is moving too quickly, particularly in light of a pending lawsuit against California’s similar low carbon fuel standard, part of that state’s global warming law, AB 32.

The transportation sector produces approximately one-third of Oregon greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Fuels Program is intended to complement, not replace, the Oregon Renewable Fuel Standard, which passed in 2007 and requires that gasoline contain at minimum ten percent ethanol and diesel contain at minimum five percent biodiesel. Additionally, the program is an important component of Oregon’s broader climate change actions – such as the Global Warming Commission’s Roadmap to 2020.

Oregon was one of the first states to adopt a low carbon fuel standard in 2009. For more information on low carbon fuel standards across the country, this C2ES map covers states that are considering or have approved similar policies.